What part of secrecy don?t they understand?

FRANK MIELE

In its continuing effort to get the word ?secrecy? stricken from the American lexicon, the New York Times earlier this month reported on several so-called classified documents related to the government?s tactical decisions about how to fight the war on terror.

This is not the first time The New York Times has reported on ?top secret? government documents, programs, or war plans. The paper?s argument, of course, is that the government works for ?we the people? and therefore ?we the people? should know everything the government is doing.

The problem is that whatever ?we the people? know, ?they our enemies? also know. Information is fungible; once it is in circulation it cannot be contained in a discrete ?safe? form. It can instead be applied by anyone for anything at any time. And like magnesium, it burns brightest (and most dangerously) when it is in the open air.

This principle has been understood since the dawn of time, and thus secrecy has been an important component of all human dealings, whether in government or elsewhere. People have acquiesced to the need for secrecy because of their understanding that sometimes knowledge is deadly. ?Loose lips sink ships? was literally true during World War II, but it remains metaphorically true today in all regards. When the New York Times leaks the U.S. government?s plans to counter insurgencies in Afghanistan or Iraq, it is putting in danger our troops, our policies and those governments.

Of course, the Times wants you to think that it is protecting you from the government by releasing these secret legal opinions issued by the Justice Department on the matter of what is and isn?t appropriate for interrogation techniques used on terror suspects.

The fact of the matter is it is not protecting you from anything. Rather, it is providing comfort to our enemies both by girding them with information and by fomenting public discord over policies that may not be tasteful but are nonetheless vital. It is also misleading you into thinking you are somehow at risk because of these policies. You are not.

The government is not going to waterboard you; it is not going to head slap you; or pretend to drown you. Even if you are insanely sympathetic to people who want to blow up our tall buildings and sacred national monuments, the government is going to have no interest in you whatsoever until you cross the line and begin to plot to do harm yourself or try to contact those who will.

But the government does have an interest in such people ? a legitimate interest ? and we should all have an interest in helping the government to accomplish its goals of finding and thwarting people who want to do us harm.

We do all have such an interest, but the New York Times wants to convince us we have a greater interest in hamstringing our government to protect the rights of terrorists. To the New York Times, secrecy is the enemy, not terrorism.

But in fact, secrecy is not in and of itself a problem. Oftentimes, it is justified, wise and valuable. It is a tool, which like any tool can be used or abused. But just as some people want to ban all guns, some people want to ban all secrets, at least in government.

I suppose it?s human nature to want to know the things we are not meant to know. Even at the very beginning of the human story, in the book of Genesis, we are told how very easy it was for Satan to persuade Eve, and then for Eve to persuade Adam, that God didn?t know what he was doing when he declared the fruit of the one tree to be secret.

I suppose, in a way, Satan was the first proponent of ?open government.? God, of course, as the divine commander, had the need and authority to declare certain information to be classified. He encoded that information in the form of, let us say, an apple, and told Adam and Eve that for their own good, for the good of everybody, it was best if they did not know what was in there.

At first, they were perfectly happy not knowing what was in that apple ? a small, tiny finite fruit ? because, after all, they had everything else in the world. Literally everything. They had a quality life, a good life, and did not even question whether it was appropriate for God, the divine ruler, to tell them it was best ? for their own good ? not to eat the apple.

But Satan, in the form of a serpent, was ?more subtle than any beast of the field.? In fact, he thought he was smarter than everyone else, and had used reason and logic to conclude that God?s government was oppressive and dictatorial. Satan was obsessed with the idea that God had the power to decide for other beings what was in their best interest, and determined to give power to people to decide for themselves what they wanted to do, how they wanted to live, and what they wanted to eat.

So he told Eve about the forbidden fruit: ?God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.?

And that was essentially the truth. Adam and Eve?s eyes WERE opened. They DID know good and evil. They WERE better informed than before, but the question is, ?Were they better off??

The New York Times thinks it can determine for all of us what will make us better off, but the New York Times was not elected by anyone. At least the government ? which determines officially what is and is not secret ? has been put in place by us. It works for us. The New York Times works for the board of directors of the New York Times.

If the New York Times is going to do away with secrecy, we suggest they begin at home. Let?s get a full public disclosure of all salaries at the Times, as well as a complete record of all contributions made by or on behalf of the employees of the Times. It would certainly be interesting to know whether any reporters covering particular beats have a conflict of interest, wouldn?t it? In addition, it would be useful for the New York Times to publish a full and accurate transcript of all editorial board meetings as well as meetings to determine what is and isn?t in the nation?s best interest. That might shed a little light on whether the paper really does have a liberal bias, don?t you think? After all, the argument used for open government also applies to the New York Times, doesn?t it? The newspaper declares itself a representative of ?we the people,? and thus should owe a full accounting to ?we the people? as well.

Except of course they value their privacy, which is just another name for secrecy.

And what?s good for the New York Times should be good for the rest of us, too.

? Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com